Saturday, March 23, 2013

More evidence that the elites are post-national

David Goodhart has written a post for the Daily Mail titled "Why we on the left made an epic mistake on immigration".

One of the most interesting bits of information in the post is this:

There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise
global welfare not national welfare.’

I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.

A few years ago I was at a 60th birthday party for a well-known Labour MP. Many of the leading thinkers of the British centre-left were there and at one point the conversation turned to the infamous Gordon Brown slogan “British jobs for British workers,” from a speech he had given a few days before at the Labour conference.

The people around me entered a bidding war to express their outrage at Brown’s slogan which was finally triumphantly closed by one who declared, to general approval, that it was “racism, pure and simple.”

I remember thinking afterwards how odd the conversation would have sounded to most other people in this country. Gordon Brown’s phrase may have been clumsy and cynical but he didn’t actually say British jobs for white British workers.

In most other places in the world today, and indeed probably in Britain itself until about 25 years ago, such a statement about a job preference for national citizens would have seemed so banal as to be hardly worth uttering. Now the language of liberal universalism has ruled it beyond the pale.

My fellow partygoers were all too representative of a part of liberal, educated Britain. Shami Chakrabarti, of the human rights group Liberty, has argued: “In the modern world of transnational and multinational power we must decide if we are all ‘people’ or all ‘foreigners’ now.”

Oliver Kamm, the centrist commentator, said to me recently that it was morally wrong to discriminate on grounds of nationality, ruling out the “fellow citizen favouritism” that most people think that the modern nation state is based on.

And according to George Monbiot, a leading figure of the liberal left, “Internationalism… tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington… Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of British people [before the Congolese]. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How… do you distinguish it from racism?”

It is not only people on the left who think like this. On a recent BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze programme about development aid, the former Tory cabinet minister and born-again liberal Michael Portillo had this to say: “It is quite old fashioned to think about national borders, and rather nationalistic to say we must help people who are only moderately poor because they happen to be in the UK rather than helping people who are desperately poor because they happen to be a long way away.”

All of the above are, in the formulation of a group of North American cultural psychologists, WEIRD—they are from a sub-culture that is Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic. They are, as we have seen, universalists, suspicious of strong national loyalties. They also tend to be individualists committed to autonomy and self-realisation. Balancing that they are usually deeply concerned with social justice and unfairness and also suspicious of appeals to religion or to human nature to justify any departure from equal treatment—differences between men and women, for example, are regarded as cultural not biological.

I'll write more about David Goodhart in a future post. The point I'll stick to for now is that traditionalist predictions about a civic nationalism are already coming true.

Liberals didn't like a traditional nationalism, based on ties of shared ethnicity, because ethnicity is a predetermined quality that we can't autonomously choose for ourselves. So liberals opted instead for civic nationalism, in which national solidarity is based on citizenship and a shared commitment to liberal political institutions and values.

But even a civic nationalism still discriminates between people based on something that we are usually born into (citizenship), so it will still fail the test for the more rigorous kind of liberals.

For that reason, the liberal elite is moving increasingly to a post-national position - one in which they think it is wrong to discriminate in favour of people who are part of your own nation. You are no longer supposed to favour fellow citizens, let alone fellow members of your own ethny.

As Goodhart noted in his Prospect piece, this attitude is emerging on the right as well as the left. There's an election later this year in Australia and so the PM, Julia Gillard, has been trying to win working class support by promising a crackdown on the rorting of the 457 temporary visa system. The message is that qualified Australians should get first go at Australian jobs rather than overseas workers.

That was too much for some on the right. Tony Abbott criticised Gillard for engaging in a "birthplace war" whilst columnist Andrew Bolt wrote that it showed that Labor was the party of "xenophobia" and that it was an example of "moral failings".

The current drift, even on the mainstream right, is toward a post-national mentality, one in which we are not supposed to favour members of our nation.

I don't know how enduring this shift will be: can societies really continue to function well when communal loyalty is considered immoral or outdated? Can a national state prosper when the people running it no longer believe in national loyalties of any kind?

If the political leaders of my country have no special obligation to me, I have no special obligation to them. In fact, if they are governing on behalf of the Congolese, I don't have political leaders, or a country. Personally, I call them traitors and would like to see the statutory penalty applied.

Liberals tap into so many old western ailments and weaknesses its amazing. Its almost impossible to just say they did not plan this. One they tap into the use of classicism in a sublime way. They are both for and against it. The public view is they are against it. However everyone has heard a liberal browbeat a westerner. Whether as a direct classicist attack or an in fact hypocritical racist attack (with impunity. If they are not poor and stupid they are hideously white and affluent).This is why the liberal thinking "I value X person from far away land more than my local people" Is a common thing liberals say of all stripes.Their own people are seen in the negative. Foreign people are both exotic (tapping into age old colonial European interest in the foreign)and whats more they are out of sight.Liberals can throw their own peoples money at foreign people. Browbeat their own people. Then sleep soundly at night in their perfect storm of insanity.

There are so many other things they tap into for their apparent gain. Charity, guilt, morality etc all perverted and used against their own people.

A nation-state can't, but they aren't in favor of the continuation of the nation-state. Slowly but surely they want to move towards a multi-ethnic, multi-national supra-state run by the international, suprranational, elite class of experts (i.e., "Davos Man").

That's what they want. They know it doesn't work for the nation-state, but the whole idea of the nation-state is not accepted as anything other than a tiresome anachronism which needs to be phased out in favor of a supra-national, supra-ethnic, superstate run by rootless expert elites.

Goodhart is one to talk. I was at a public meeting in London recently where he called Churchill 'a racist', confident that nobody in the (predominantly liberal) audience would challenge him. I did challenge him, told him he was 'a disgrace' for slandering our great national hero in that way, for judging Churchill by the politically correct standards of the present day. He seemed flabbergasted that I had called him out on it.

Alternatively, we could deport all non-whites from white people's homelands. That way, there is no racism.

The article you've linked us to is awful. It is critical of separatist multiculturalism, and praises integration. Whilst the presence of any non-whites is an issue, separatism is better than integration.

Sneering lefties that whine about racism need to shut up.

The idea of treating every human being on the planet with absolute egalitarianism sounds great in theory, but practice it's extremely foolish.

On a fundamental level, race is kin. To be anti-racist is to be anti-kin; and since kin is family then anti-racism is anti-family, and if one is to be anti-family, one is to be pro-nonreproduction and pro-isolated atomization. Logically therefore it isn't very difficult to conclude that the obvious corollary of anti-racism is an approval of suicide, on every level - both of the individual and of the group (kin, race).

It seems that the left has publicly admitted that they are not patriotic. The charge of lack of patriotism should be directed their way in each election campaign, backed up by quotes such as found in this article.

The charge of lack of patriotism should be directed their way in each election campaign, backed up by quotes such as found in this article.

That assumes that these people somehow care to uphold these principles, aren't hypocritical or aren't using these as weapons to further their own goals.

Some of these tactics are eerily familiar to female tactics in debate, such as shaming language, loss of memory, cognitive dissonance and contradiction. Others are merely atheistic/agnostic in nature, and that should be studied as well.

Whether your strategy has a chance of working depends on the country and the time. I would say that here in the States, the time for such an approach has passed. This would merely trigger more leftist cries of racism, which given the current composition of the US electorate, would work. As white, western, family-oriented people, we are now definitely outnumbered.

So here the GOP sees its only "out" in further liberalization of the border and immigration issues. Such will be their demise, but unfortunately, there is no answer any longer within the system.

I think, if I interpret JM Smith, and perhaps Elizabeth Smith correctly, then we need to press the point that we owe these vermin no obligation. Too many mainstream "conservatives" here keep faithfully manning the civil barricades, even as they are demonized for doing so. They seem content to play the proverbial rodeo clown in this show (sorry if that analogy is too American).

But I say, if these people think they can run the world with a set of clients rather than with citizens, and we are in no effective position to stop them in any case, then for the love of heaven give them their experiment in its true form. Stop voting. Stop serving in the armed forces - -just whom do you think you are defending, anyway? Do everything you can -- within the confines of the law -- to stop feeding the beast.

Start thinking in terms of alternative arrangements. Do what you can to support the transmission of white, western civilization.

--Aaron S.

p.s. I am in no position to make such a judgment concerning Australia. I am just calling things as I see them "up here." I am hopeful that perhaps in *some* western countries, there are still majorities to whom genuine patriotic appeals can be made.

Once you abolish the nation state you return to feudalism. Under feudalism, elites have no geographic loyalities (only idelogical, family or commerical loyalties) and the general population have to satisfy the whims and interests of whichever bunch of elites happen to be ruling them at the time.

This is pretty much the situation today, where for example, Australian taxpayers have to support Somali refugees and British soldiers fight to support Afghan warlords or the interests of American oil companies.

The elites forget that in their charge for a globalised World that federal governments will be unnecessary. The elites will inevitably have no police force or defense force to protect their privileged position, nor fire department or healthcare.

The masses just don't realise yet that they work to maintain an immoral system that doesn't give them a shot.

JMSmith: "If the political leaders of my country have no special obligation to me, I have no special obligation to them. In fact, if they are governing on behalf of the Congolese, I don't have political leaders, or a country."

I feel the same.

That's why I don't accept that "we" white westerners are committing suicide". The people doing this are traitors. They care nothing for me or my kind, and I care nothing for them. There is no "we" that is committing collective suicide, there is a "them" composed of people who look like us but have no loyalty to us, and they are committing genocide against us. "Us" being use whites, the target of genocide by mass immigration and forced integration, but only those who have not renounced natural and necessary loyalties.

"Natural and necessary loyalties" have to include race, because it turns out that repudiation of racial loyalty (for whites only) comes with an implied warrant for white genocide. That's not acceptable.

Over and over, emphatically and with detail, David Goodhart says that what happened and is continuing to happen came about naturally, with no agency. It just happened.

It's a lie. He is changing history to remove guilt from the guilty, to make what is being done by anti-whites seem like an act of god or nature, and to make those (like Enoch Powell) who warned of the danger and were howled down for it vanish from the story as un-persons.

That is how the anti-whites forced this on us. It was done by elites, by fiat, and by demonizing and ruining everyone who objected, so that people fell silent.

The "proposition nation" cannot provide a principled objection to the gradual replacement of the population, that is to the elimination of the nation as an identifiable racial group and its replacement by some imported group(s) or a forced blending that has lost the character of the previous people.

Mass immigration and forced integration points to the end of whites as an identifiable group in every country in for which it is being advocated, which is every white country on Earth. The elimination of such identifiable groups, including racial groups, is genocide. Genocide is the most serious possible crime, morally and legally. That is enough to put paid to the legitimacy of the "proposition nation".

It turns out that "civic nationalism" is the same thing. It breaks down to every objection to white genocide, that is to the elimination of identifiable white populations in every historically white state through mass immigration and forced integration.

Sooner or later - and it's shockingly sooner, by historic standards - both race and nation must be lost.

When we're eliminated as an identifiable race, the confused, divided, deracinated and force-blended peoples that replace us will lack the solidarity (and the genes, and the culture) that constituted our nations and built our states, and that let them become democratic and havens from tyranny. What comes after us is tyranny, chaos and misery. That is what "civic nationalism" leads to, if it is persisted in long enough.

But I don't care what comes after us, because when "white" refers to genetic traces, like traces of Neanderthal inheritance, the people that will have come about will be as alien to us as neanderthals are. They can worry about that world, since we will have no share in it.

My concern is with white people everywhere in the world, provided that they are not the anti-white traitors who look like us but have no loyalty to us. We need to resist white genocide. That is our supreme moral duty.

Historically, in Australia, race came first, before nation. Federation was easy to achieve peacefully and in democratic good order, because everyone who was really part of the nation was already united by race. That is why, at federation, every party was committed to "White Australia" - because that sentiment was so strong in the people that they would not tolerate anything else.

It turns out that we can't move away from that original race-first position without giving the anti-whites a warrant to genocide us. And they absolutely will and are doing so. So, as the writer said: back to blood.

Over and over, emphatically and with detail, David Goodhart says that what happened and is continuing to happen came about naturally, with no agency. It just happened.

It's a lie.

Agree 100%.

If liberals think something bad about the past is gone, they claim responsibility. If they think something good about the past is gone, then it's due to a force of nature, an accident, impersonal economic forces, an oversight, something no-one could have foreseen and so on.

Mark Richardson: "If liberals think something bad about the past is gone, they claim responsibility. If they think something good about the past is gone, then it's due to a force of nature, an accident, impersonal economic forces, an oversight, something no-one could have foreseen and so on."

Agree 100%.

There is no good faith with people who keep changing the past to favor themselves.

It's because they're so devious and dishonest, because they change the past and disrespect the truth and change the meanings of words beyond all recognition, that I now (defensively) advocate drawing such a hard line on race.

With the anti-whites, it's not so much a slippery slope as it is a slippery cliff.

In South Africa in 1992, the whites were asked one question: "Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new Constitution through negotiation?" That's all.

The politicians took a "yes" to that as a warrant to hand over the country with no further consultation. That was the last time whites were asked their opinion - it was straight from "yes we licence you to enter into negotiations" to "Shoot the Boer!", hundreds of thousands of whites reduced to abject squalor, the end of the principle of merit in hiring, and South African whites being moved on to genocide watch as farmers are murdered by the thousands.

How can you make merely polite, rhetorical concessions to totally dishonest people who constantly edit the past to favor themselves, and who have genocidal intentions?

You can't do it.

If you simply nod your head while they say nice-sounding words like "inclusive" they take that as a binding agreement to policies that as far as you are concerned aren't "inclusive" they're eliminationist.

It's not only the lies they tell about history, but what they leave out.

"In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs."

Right, this is a textbook process that in these cases at least is going exactly as intended. Forced blending is succeeding, and the non-whites are upwardly mobile.

In this textbook picture, WHO IS DOWNWARDLY MOBILE??

And don't tell me, "nobody; elite academics never thought that not everybody would move into the top half of the formerly white British hierarchy".

I'm not going to believe anyone smart enough to be an academic authority din't think of that.

Especially with imported labor imposing downward pressure on wages and conditions (both directly and through the destruction of solidarity).

It just happened?

A textbook process that of logical and practical necessity creates downward mobility for the whites, and destruction of old "identities" (which destruction nobody democratically asked to have imposed on them) in favor of more "interesting" new (non-white) ones, as though white people were no more than expendable experimental animals for social scientists to do experiments on - just happened?

And nobody, nobody at all, dreamed that there could be any negative consequences for non-elite whites.

There are some people out there (who may be seen as neo-Nazis) who make the claim that Jews are responsible for the mass immigration of non-whites into white countries.

However, this ignores the fact that there are significant numbers of left-wing white people who fully support the mass migration of millions of non-whites to settle in white countries. Are there some Jews who support such left-wing multiracial policies for white countries? Undoubtedly, but I would say they are easily outnumbered by those white people who support multiracialism.

And of course, the long-term end result of multiracialism is the nonexistence of white people at some future stage.

As I was saying earlier, isn't suicide anti-racist? Wouldn't the ultimate act of anti-racism be for all white people to commit suicide?

If "racism" can be defined as actions, words or ideas that favour one's own ethny over others, then "anti-racism" could be defined as the opposite; a disdain for kin. And what could possibly constitute a greater disdain for kin than to seek one's own kin's nonexistence?

When an animal is in great pain, the humane thing to do is to put it down. We are not granted such a level of kindness, as we are forced to live our lives whilst white people as a racial group are slowly dissipating into nonexistence, and are prevented from taking action against this. This can be viewed as a form of mental torture.

The lower birth rate of white people is to a large extent a byproduct of feminism, again another ideology championed by the left. However, it is miscegenation that seems to be amongst the most discussed factors in these kinds of discussions.

Now if white racial future nonexistence is inevitable, then there doesn't really seem to be much point in continuing to live. If we white people were to all commit suicide today, it would not make any difference to the fact that sooner or later, white people are going to cease to exist, and become as biologically extinct as the dodo, based upon realistic demographic projections.

The issue of racial reproduction cannot be realistically viewed outside the context of relations between men and women, because that is what continuity of an ethny depends upon.

"Racial reproduction" sounds bad. It certainly doesn't sound like anything that any leftist would take too kindly to.

The left have presented themselves as being in possession of the only genuine set of superior moral values in existence. Opposition to their agenda is castigated as 'racism' and 'fascism' and is thus viewed as immoral.

Many leftists like to talk of equality as being the ultimate end goal of their endeavours, but what is the reality on the ground?

The reality is that equality does not exist when it comes to reproduction. White men being sexually frustrated whilst white women push mixed-race children down the street in buggies would be viewed as equality, despite the fact that it isn't equality, in terms of a right to racial reproduction, i.e. continued ethnic existence, i.e. opposition to genocide, i.e. opposition to "anti-racism" and "feminism".

Leftists believe we have a moral obligation to get rid of "racism". Since left-wing thought has penetrated virtually all the institutions of mainstream society, then virtually everywhere we go, we are told that "racism" is a bad thing and we must get rid of it.

Since "racism" constitutes white people's ethnic genetic interests, then the obligation to get rid of "racism" really means an obligation to get rid of white people. And this is promoted as the highest possible good in society, the dissipation of white people into nonexistence.

Repeat it to yourself:

The obligation to get rid of "racism" really means an obligation to get rid of white people.

The obligation to get rid of "racism" really means an obligation to get rid of white people.

The obligation to get rid of "racism" really means an obligation to get rid of white people.

Most European ethnic groups don't see themselves first and foremost as white - they will instead usually describe themselves as belonging to a particular national ethnicity such as Scottish, English, Irish, German, Norwegian, Dutch, French, etc.

European-descended Americans, and other diaspora European descendents (Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans etc) will probably be more likely to identify as white than Europeans in Europe. Is 'white' defined in opposition to 'black'? Did this way of thinking originate in America?

Let's take for example... let's say Scotland. How can Scottish people define themselves? Here are a number of choices:

*Scottish*British*European*White*Western*Christian (traditionally)*English speaking (there is Scots, but it's scarcely more than a dialect - nae an affa lot mair, ken?)

Out of all those choices, what are Scottish people likely to define themselves as?

'White' would be lower down the list - that's for sure. Not that they wouldn't understand what 'white' means but it's not primarily what they would identify as being. On the other hand, Americans of European ancestry would probably more readily identify as 'white'.

Is 'white' loaded with negative connotations? Leftists have often sought to emphasise 'crimes' committed by white people. Some of the big ones include:

*Black slavery in America*Apartheid in South Africa*Colonialism (European overseas empires)*And of course... the Holocaust

Leftists like to play these up and try to make all white people feel guilty and responsible for these events, whilst simultaneously they like to play down bad things done by non-whites such as...

*Europeans being enslaved by Muslims (historically)*The Moorish and Ottoman invasions of Europe*White people being killed by blacks in Southern Africa (present day)*The killings of white French people by blacks during the Haitian revolution*The Holodomor (Starvation of Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, allegedly the responsiblity of Jewish Communists)*Gulags in the Soviet Union (allegedly the responsiblity of Jewish Communists, according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

Why the double standard? Well, it's quite simple - the left has an anti-white agenda. Since 'white' becomes defined as 'bad' by the emphasis on the crimes of history committed by white people whilst crimes by others are overlooked, it becomes acceptable to become 'anti-white'.

Memes self-replicate. Universities are hotbeds of left-wing activity. Western universities are absolutely teeming with "anti-racist" ideas, especially in the social sciences. The agenda then becomes to fight 'whiteness' because it is seen as bad for the reasons described above.

Is it therefore wise to identify as 'white'?

It's worth noting that a lot of leftists don't actually believe that race exists in any meaningful biological sense, but is instead socially constructed to justify oppression of groups deemed to be 'other' and 'inferior'. Now whilst this is absolute nonsense - to believe that race doesn't exist is to ignore strong morphological, phenotypical and/or visual evidence to the extent that it's like ignoring what you see with your own eyes, in other words, very similar to believing that two plus two equals five - people will nonetheless believe that race doesn't exist.

They say don't believe but all evidence of what they say and write says otherwise.

In appears to be crazy but it's really just dishonesty or being disingenuous.

Don't fall into their mental trap of saying a group of people doesn't exist the fact they can identify the group and know exactly what they are talking about should be proof enough.

Perhaps you feel white is an icky word ? It does not matter. Argent could be the word and leftist s would say argents do not exist. Imagine saying Jews do not exist ( as some people actually do). It's delegitimising language. Say a people do not exist and you excuse pogroms against the group.

As for "crimes" attributed to whites collectively. All you need to know is that leftists attribute them to people with no history of the "crimes". It's baseless racial vilification.

Previous anon again. I forgot to say I agree the term white is not preferable it is true it's a loaded term. Identifying as white with any sort of enthusiasm will send a leftist into a spin but as an example why running away from the word won't save you from leftist morons. I was in a discussion with a leftist and he took offence to me using the word Europid to describe Europeans. Claiming he had never seen or heard this term used by anyone and the implication I was using white supremacist language found only on neonazi sites.I calmly told him that Europid is German for Caucasian.